On Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Clarifying the Natural State pg. 33 it says: "you must become certain that it is mind that merely appears or is seen as being thoughts. You must resolve that thoughts and mind are indivisible. [...] [the mind] does appear as a variety of thoughts. Even though it appears as them, it has not changed from being the aware emptiness of the mind that is not a definable entity."

This makes sense but I heard that one should 'let the mind rest in thought free lucidity' and of thoughts covering purity of the mind. Doesn't the mean that mind and thoughts are different things?

Equanimity is the ground. Love is the moisture. Compassion is the seed. Bodhicitta is the result.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

Konchog1 wrote:On Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Clarifying the Natural State pg. 33 it says: "you must become certain that it is mind that merely appears or is seen as being thoughts. You must resolve that thoughts and mind are indivisible. [...] [the mind] does appear as a variety of thoughts. Even though it appears as them, it has not changed from being the aware emptiness of the mind that is not a definable entity."

This makes sense but I heard that one should 'let the mind rest in thought free lucidity' and of thoughts covering purity of the mind. Doesn't the mean that mind and thoughts are different things?

I've never quite gotten this either, in some of the Mahamudra stuff they say it's a sign of progress when you no longer see thoughts as impediments, though it's somewhat contrary because from the beginning there are lots of teachings about moving mind and still mind..just conventional terms I guess.

May the eyes of living beings be gladdened by skies made splendid by clouds that lightnings garland, while on earth below, the peacocks dance with joy as showers of rain, falling gently, approach.

Locked in thoughts gives the arising of the conceptual world and is equal with locked in chasing moving mind. Awareness aware is Mind, not chasing its movements just like the open vast sky is not chasing or hunting passing winds. Moving mind is chasing wind itself, not aware of the spacious sky at all.

The dependency of appearances / emptiness are not two things, seen as Awareness.

There is no thought/mind with its conceptual world when there is no grasping thought, what is grasping following thoughts or being locked in their flow of habitual fictitious stories, which are hiding (temporary) our peaceful nature.

Konchog1 wrote:On Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Clarifying the Natural State pg. 33 it says: "you must become certain that it is mind that merely appears or is seen as being thoughts. You must resolve that thoughts and mind are indivisible. [...] [the mind] does appear as a variety of thoughts. Even though it appears as them, it has not changed from being the aware emptiness of the mind that is not a definable entity."

This makes sense but I heard that one should 'let the mind rest in thought free lucidity' and of thoughts covering purity of the mind. Doesn't the mean that mind and thoughts are different things?

Being free from thoughts and not having thoughts are not necessarily the same thing, as it is said in the Dzogchen teachings ;"the more thoughts the more dharmakaya"

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

I find it helpful to discern the conceptual conditioned, and non-conceptual nonconditioned in which thoughts are not identified as mine/ours. Like the conceptual conditioned can be seen like some traditions call it little mind ( story of the frog ). That little one thinks to be the owner of thoughts but is infact enslaved by them (due to grasping to their solid reality I guess), while the nonconditioned or vast mind without beginning or end is mastering mind and the free thoughts are as nectar or light to show the delusion of me-thought or me-mind from which others-mind arises.

"The two main types of mind are explained as the conceptual and the non-conceptual. The conceptual is the "normal" mind aspect we use to survive in daily life, but is ultimately mistaken about the way in which reality exists. The non-conceptual type of mind is also called the Buddha nature, rigpa (Tib.), fundamental pure nature of mind which realises emptiness (see the page on Wisdom). Study and training the mind in wisdom uses the conceptual mind, like preparing the mind before the underlying non-conceptual Buddha-nature of the mind can appear".http://viewonbuddhism.org/mind.html

Konchog1 wrote:On Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Clarifying the Natural State pg. 33 it says: "you must become certain that it is mind that merely appears or is seen as being thoughts. You must resolve that thoughts and mind are indivisible. [...] [the mind] does appear as a variety of thoughts. Even though it appears as them, it has not changed from being the aware emptiness of the mind that is not a definable entity."

This makes sense but I heard that one should 'let the mind rest in thought free lucidity' and of thoughts covering purity of the mind. Doesn't the mean that mind and thoughts are different things?

Have you read Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary on Pointing Out the Dharmakaya? In the section on investigating the mind in movement, this is covered in great detail.

Perhaps it would also be valuable to go and find quotes which suggest that thoughts actually cover the purity of the mind. The context may make it more clear. Also, as Magnus points out, being free of thoughts is not the same as not having thoughts -- though the formulation "thought free lucidity" may be particularly unfortunate if this is what is being conveyed here. Again, hard to say without context.

This undistracted state of ordinary mindIs the meditation.One will understand it in due course.--Gampopa

Konchog1 wrote:On Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's Clarifying the Natural State pg. 33 it says: "you must become certain that it is mind that merely appears or is seen as being thoughts. You must resolve that thoughts and mind are indivisible. [...] [the mind] does appear as a variety of thoughts. Even though it appears as them, it has not changed from being the aware emptiness of the mind that is not a definable entity."

This makes sense but I heard that one should 'let the mind rest in thought free lucidity' and of thoughts covering purity of the mind. Doesn't the mean that mind and thoughts are different things?

No. They appear to be different things. Pg. 33 explains that very nicely. On pg. 43, the section Pointing out Innate Thinking offers additional insight. Perhaps this quote from Heart Advice from a Mahamudra Master by Gendun Rinpoche might also help,

When our mind ceases reacting to a thought that arises, it will recognize the thought as a movement of itself. Recognizing itself in the movement, it remains relaxed and finds rest.

By any chance, are you also reading Crystal Clear, Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary on CtNS? It not, it's highly recommended.

All things are unworthy of clinging to (sabbe dhammā nâla abhinivesāyā). --Shakyamuni BuddhaWanting to grasp the ungraspable, you exhaust yourself in vain. --Gendun Rinpoche